In procedure, further providing for exceptions for public records; and, in judicial review, further providing for fee limitations.
Summary
HB868 would amend Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law in two main ways. First, it would add a new public-records exception for records that are “reasonably burdensome in their scope” for an agency to produce. Second, it would expand fee authority by allowing agencies to charge additional reasonable fees for processing records requests intended for use by for-profit entities or for-profit activities, with those fees payable in advance and the agency’s response time beginning only after payment is received. Agencies could also ask requesters questions to determine whether the request is for-profit in nature.
The bill also creates an exemption from the new for-profit processing fee for newspapers, magazines, broadcast outlets, and similar organizations. It would take effect 60 days after enactment. Overall, the measure would give agencies more discretion to limit or condition access to certain records requests, especially large or commercially motivated ones, while preserving a carve-out for news media.
Impact
HB868 would amend Sections 708 and 1307 of the Right-to-Know Law, changing both the scope of exempt records and the fee structure for public-records requests. The new exemption for records that are reasonably burdensome in scope could reduce the number of large or complex requests agencies must fulfill, and the new fee provision would allow agencies to impose additional advance charges on requests tied to for-profit use or activity. These changes would affect requesters, agencies, and potentially businesses, consultants, and other commercial users of public records, while expressly excluding traditional media organizations from the added fee.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to address agency workload and cost recovery concerns, suggesting a pro-administration and pro-efficiency rationale. At the same time, the added limits on access and the new fee authority could draw concern from transparency advocates and frequent public-records users.
Contention
The likely points of contention are the new exemption for records that are “reasonably burdensome in their scope” and the ability to charge extra fees for requests intended for for-profit use. Critics may argue that the burden standard is vague and could be used to deny or discourage legitimate public-records requests, while supporters may view it as a necessary safeguard against overly broad or resource-intensive requests. Another likely issue is the distinction between commercial requesters and media organizations, since the bill exempts newspapers, magazines, broadcast outlets, and similar organizations from the new fee but not other for-profit users.
In access, further providing for requests; in procedure, further providing for exceptions for public records; and, in judicial review, further providing for fee limitations.
In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in procedure, further providing for written requests; and, in judicial review, further providing for fee limitations.
In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in access, further providing for open-records officer and for retention of records; and, in judicial review, further providing for civil penalty.